Consolidated Micronaut Wish List

This is a general forum for all types of posts related to Military models.

Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1

ww2navyguy
E5
Posts: 283
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 8:21 am
Location: Sunny Florida

Re: Consolidated Micronaut Wish List

Post by ww2navyguy »

I would really like to see WW2 Japanese destroyer Akatsuki class and British WW2 destroyer leaders for the A through I classes.

Beagle
E5
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2021 2:45 am

Re: Consolidated Micronaut Wish List

Post by Beagle »

Ditto more British destroyers. Along with type I and III Hunt class.

Mikee
E5
Posts: 145
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:32 am
Location: Oakland, CA

Re: Consolidated Micronaut Wish List

Post by Mikee »

My list hasn't changed much since I posted it in June 2015. GHQ did the WWI Birmingham, Duquesne and Idaho some years ago, and the Braunschweig last year (I think). Otherwise, GHQ hasn't been very good to me.

My want list still includes (whine):

1. DD Melpomene class. The small French DD. Le Fier would be an acceptable substitute
2. AC Waldeck Rosseau. This WWI protected cruiser had six funnels. Maybe not a particularly good reason to choose this ship, but it just fascinates me.
3. DD Akatsuki. Between CinC and GHQ, nearly all the other WWII IJN DDs are covered. Only the Wakatake is left (according to my reference book).
4. BB Iowa. Not a big difference from the Missouri, but the bridge is different, and B turret has a different arrangement of AA guns. I would have though that this'd be a natural for GHQ to produce, since they already have much of the design already done, but I guess not.
5. DD Maestrale or Oriani classes. These classes look to be quite similar, so one model could be used for both classes. CinC already does (or did) either the Folgore or Freccia class, so I'd like to see GHQ produce something a little different.
6. BB Malaya. The only U.K. BB that they haven't done Why? "Tiny Thingmajigs" on Shapeways has one; I may order that model if I get around to making an order with them.
7. CA York. (Shapeways has one now.)
8. CA Suss ex. I think this model could be used for four different U.K. CAs.
9. CLAA Scylla. Two ships in this class.
10. CL Uganda class. There were 3 ships in this group.

I don't have eleventh or twelfth ones in mind; I doubt I'll live long enough to see the first ten, so there's no need to hurry my decision. I had a heart pacemaker installed in me this year; along with the IPF I already have (Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis). I think that Mother Nature is unhappy with me still hanging around. I've done very little with my ships since my last "update", although I did finally finish my Duquesnes. A couple of Soviet "Oktober" BBs and three of those little U.K. "whatevers" (I forget which class they are, but I think one of them is the Woodpecker) are still sitting on my worktable (at least I think that's what they are; the dust is getting thick). I've got the U.K. ships primed - I think - and pictures to use when painting them. I want to modify the Soviet BBs a little bit with different cranes, and take the AA guns off the central turrets of one of them, to make them look a bit different. I've also got a WWI Ge "Jutland" CL that I wanted to modify. I forget the name, but it's a class with three funnels that looks to me to be almost identical to a four funnel one produced by GHQ. I need a couple of superstructure pieces so I can modify and relocate the funnel positions on the ship. I've already painted the hull, so all I need to do is to order a few spare parts from GHQ.

BIG QUESTION!!!!!

Does anybody know if the WWI German DDs V25 - 48 are all the same design? Or did different builders build their own versions of the class. (The same goes for Ge DDs #1 - 24). I asked this question last year, but never received an answer. Maybe nobody on the forum knows? I've thought about fleshing out my Jutland fleets with a full set of DDs for each fleet; between GHQ and WTJ, I think I could cover most or all the U.K. variants, if I ever get more active, but I don't know if there are significant German variants to worry about. I've still got "colourcoat" paints around to paint them - if the paints haven't frozen solid by now.

Submariner
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 8:15 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Consolidated Micronaut Wish List

Post by Submariner »

Been a while since I put these out there:

WWII Japan seaplane carrier Akitsushima
WWII Japan submarine chaser Ch.13 class
WWII Japan gunboat Hashidate class
WWII Japan minelayer Hatsutaka class
WWII Japan seaplane tender Kaga Maru
WWII Japan seaplane tender Kinugasa Maru
WWII Japan seaplane carrier Nisshin
WWII Japan minelayer Okinoshima class
WWII Japan torpedo boat Otori class
WWII Japan Repair Ship Akashi
All things Japanese Naval

Brigade Commander
E5
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Consolidated Micronaut Wish List

Post by Brigade Commander »

Which of the seven New Orleans class cruisers may be accurately represented by USN-15 CA-38 USS San Francisco? I have been going back and forth with the photos and references I have and am not quite sure. I believe there needs to be three to accurately represent them but one source seems to contradict that. I am certain that the GHQ model does not accurately reflect the Quincy & Vincennes which need their own. The first five seem to have a mix between the two batches of bridge / main battery turret face & #2 8" turret barbette designs. So do we actually require six models for the seven ships?

Having asked all of the above, given the reality, are seven USN-15's the only practical approach to modelling the class? Some of the differences are small enough at 1:2400 that it might not be noticeable although San Francisco seems to be the least likely to have been modeled to me. It had the most differences from the rest of the class that I can see.

Don, if you are lurking, feel free to weigh in. And add to the wish list any additional models that come out of this discussion.
"It is a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step into the road and, if you do not keep your feet, there is no telling where you might be swept off to."

Bilbo Baggins to Frodo Baggins.

michaelw43
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:53 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Consolidated Micronaut Wish List

Post by michaelw43 »

@Brigade Commander:
I was hoping Donald M. Scheef would respond to your query, but that has not happened. :( I also have considered your question and I will respond on the Micronaut Only thread where I think this discussion belongs, and I will PM you as soon as I post. You can expect at least 2 articles, but not immediately.

Michael D Waters, aka michaelw43

michaelw43
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:53 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Consolidated Micronaut Wish List

Post by michaelw43 »

The USN made more appearance changes to their ships during their refits than any other WWII navy. I have been curious about how to best determine when more than one GHQ model of a particular class of warship is needed to represent all of the class at all of their mods. I decided that the best way to determine this is to view on my computer monitor screen images of the ships at the same size that the GHQ model would be.

This is how I went about it. First you will need a photo viewer. I have tried over a dozen different photo viewing apps over the years and the one I settled on is Irfan View. I have no vested interest in this software, but I have been using it for over ten years. First you need to configure the viewer. Open Irfan View, then click on Options on the Menu Bar and select Properties/Settings. Under Start/Exit options uncheck the check boxes for: Only 1 instance of IrfanView is active, and Start in full screen mode. Then select Zoom options. Click on the radio button Relative step for the best accuracy, and change the Zoom step to 1 %.

Now open photos of the ships you want to compare using comparable viewing angles, each in a separate tab. One by one reduce each image to the dimension of the Micronaut model. Here's how to determine that. Find the overall (oa) length of the ship from a reference source.

If it is in feet, using a calculator, divide by 200. Why 200? To get inches you need to multiple feet by 12, then divide by 2400. Simply dividing by 200 is equivalent to multiplying by 12/2400. Since millimeters are the smallest measure on a common ruler, I convert to mm by dividing by 200, then multiplying by 25.4, since that's how many mm are in an inch.

If the dimension in in meters, multiply the oa length by 5/12. Why 5/12? Multiplying by 5/12 is equivalent to multiplying by 1,000 to get mm, then dividing by 2400.

Since it is unlikely you will get the exact viewing angle, I tweak the resulting images as necessary by using the + or - keys in the viewer. To gauge the image sizes you can equalize a common feature located amidships, such as a funnel height. When the funnel heights are equal, the apparent distance from the ships is equal.

Then click from tab to tab to examine each image in detail, comparing their features. In the end I base my decisions on the overall look of the ship. If it looks different, it is different, and IMHO a new model is required. The choices are subjective by nature, as each of us has our own opinion and no one is more right than anyone else.

Michael D. Waters

michaelw43
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:53 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Consolidated Micronaut Wish List

Post by michaelw43 »

@ Brigade Commander

In regards to the New Orleans class of US heavy cruisers, here is how I went about determining which GHQ models would be required for all of the WWII years. First I looked at images (from Wikipedia and navsource(dot)org) of all 7 ships in their late pre-war years, that would be in the late 1930s and very early 1940s through Dec 7, 1941. Here is what I saw in common that was changed later: a winged bridge with a large armored rangefinder set in a "dishpan" like enclosure located atop the bridge and projecting forward of the bridge face, and without surrounding splinter protection on this deck, a flat topped forefunnel (except Astoria got her clinker screen in Jul 1941), a tall foremast (except Astoria), no radar, and no light AA except for 8 .50 cal machine guns, and 4 searchlights on a tall searchlight tower between the funnels. For differences: a longer 8" gun turret in (Group 1): New Orleans, Astoria, and Minneapolis, a slightly shorter 8" gun turret in (Group 2): Tuscaloosa and San Francisco, and in :(Group 3) Quincy and Vincennes, slightly narrower funnels in Group 3, an expanded navigation bridge below the main bridge in Groups 1 and 2.

Since all the members of each group seemed almost identical to each other, I only needed to look at 1 member of each group, so I compared 3 ships. By reducing the images to the actual size of the GHQ model, I could not say that the differences alone in turrets required new models IMHO, and the Group 3 funnels alone likewise.

Next I viewed all the ships in early to mid-1942 mods: a clinker funnel top added to the forefunnel, the addition of 4 quad 1.1" guns, 2 on the quarterdeck aft of the aft 8" gun turret and 2 (port & starboard) to the side of the bridge high up at the 04 level above the main bridge deck, the additions of 6-10 20mm single guns replacing the .50 cal machine guns, splinter protection added to the bridge top (not in Tuscaloosa, Quincy and Vincennes), the addition of Mk 3 fire control radar to the tops of the fore and aft fire control directors, lowering the top foremast to just above the lower (now the only) yardarm with an SC small rectangular search radar atop it. Not all these changes were made at the same refit, but all were so modified by July 1942. The addition of 20 mm guns, a clinker screen, Mk 3 and SC radars made little difference, but the lowered mast, the 1.1" quads, and splinter protection on top of the bridge made some difference.

Now it was time to compare the early war mods vs. the pre-war looks. IMHO an overall appearance change is needed to require a new model. Only the Vincennes had its armored rangefinder and its "dishpan" removed, giving it a flat-faced bridge. This, combined with slimmer funnels and shorter 8" gun turrets made Vincennes different from group 1 & 2 ships. Therefore a Vincennes model is required. Hmmh. Let's take a look at GHQ's #USN15. Wow, it has a flat-face bridge. That could only mean that #USN15 is Vincennes, not San Francisco! Quincy retained the "dishpan", but was otherwise the same as Vincennes -- not enough difference for a separate model. Also I decided that for me the pre-war versions were not different enough for additional models.

Belatedly I discovered a front view of New Orleans and of Minneapolis after the Battle of Tassafaronga on 30 Nov 1942 (see their Wikipedia pages for photos of each). What I noticed is that New Orleans lacked the expanded lower level bridge and it made a significant difference. So a model for New Orleans is required, as of 8 Jul 1942, and so is one for the rest of the class; I chose Astoria as of June 1942.

Unfortunately, Astoria, Quincy and Vincennes were lost in the Battle of Savo Island on 9 Aug 1942. In mid 1943, 3 of the 4 class survivors underwent a major reconstruction of the bridge (Tuscaloosa 1944). All of the "wings" were cut away, and a flat-sided, narrow bridge remained with a major square-cornered forward extension that created a new look. The searchlight tower was lowered with only 2 lights, and 6-40mm quads replaced the 4-1.1" quads. The large SK radar replaced the SC radar. Both masts were stepped in 1944. There were only minor differences among them and another model is required. I chose San Francisco as of 13 Oct 1944. By 27 Jun 1945 Minneapolis added a twin 40mm mount on top of 8'' gun turret No. 2, but I don't consider that ground for another new model.

To summerize: In my 9+ years of reading the GHQ Forum I have noticed that opinions seemed to coalesce around 3 different degrees of differences. The generalist would seem to prefer the fewest number of models, ignoring all but large differences. The particularist would want many models to distinguish small differences, and the moderate in between. The more I have studied the ships of WWII, the more I became aware of individual details and the more particular I have become. So the particularist would possibly want an early war Quincy, and 3 pre-war models, for a total of 5-8. The generalist would probably be happy with 2, an early war and a square bridge. I being a moderate, leaning toward the particular, I want 4: 1942 New Orleans; 1942 Astoria, Minneapolis, Tuscaloosa, and San Francisco; 1942 Vincennes, and Quincy; 1944 San Francisco, Tuscaloosa, New Orleans, and Minneapolis. I hope the reader finds this ** CENSORED ** useful.

Michael D. Waters

Can you believe it? An*al*ysis was censored!
Last edited by michaelw43 on Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:50 am, edited 2 times in total.

ww2navyguy
E5
Posts: 283
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 8:21 am
Location: Sunny Florida

Re: Consolidated Micronaut Wish List

Post by ww2navyguy »

Wow, that's a lot of detail! Good write up and good info on the view too. Thanks. I have always been curious of the different versions needed for the US Omaha class light cruiser which uses the GHQ model USN35 for CL-8 Detroit. The primary weapons configuration changed between several different ships in the class. Some had 12 x 6" guns, some had 10 x 6" guns, while others had 8 x 6" guns, if I recall correctly during different periods of WW2. I think the GHQ model for USS Detroit CL-8 is configured with 10 x 6" guns (2 x twin 6" mounts and 6 x single 6" casemates).

michaelw43
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:53 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Consolidated Micronaut Wish List

Post by michaelw43 »

@ ww2navyguy

OK, I can take a look at those, also.
I'll PM you when I post.

Michael D. W.

Brigade Commander
E5
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Consolidated Micronaut Wish List

Post by Brigade Commander »

Michael,

I second ww2navyguy. A Donald M. Scheef level an4lysis if I ever saw one! And of course we all have on here. I was only looking toward the 1942~1943 period but appreciate you took them through 1944. I was leaning slightly differently but cannot argue with your depth of research. I was sure it would take three models and was unhappy with the provenance of GHQ's model being San Francisco. So to summarize this into a wish list, since I am also a moderate / particularist when I can, we need:

1) 1942 New Orleans;
2) 1942 Astoria, Minneapolis, Tuscaloosa, and San Francisco;
3) 1942 Vincennes, and Quincy (USN-15 renamed) (the easiest so perversely the least likely to actually happen) and
4) 1944 San Francisco, Tuscaloosa, New Orleans, and Minneapolis.

Having said that I am more of a moderate / particularist the availability of models and the level of likelyhood of particular models being produced sometimes forces me into a "do I model with what is there or wait and hope" decision tree. Sadly I may be looking at production lists until I can no longer build in 1:2400 and still never see the ships I wish for. No matter what does, or not, happen your an4lysis is most appreciated. Donald's position as naval sage is ably backed-up by you.
"It is a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step into the road and, if you do not keep your feet, there is no telling where you might be swept off to."

Bilbo Baggins to Frodo Baggins.

Brigade Commander
E5
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Consolidated Micronaut Wish List

Post by Brigade Commander »

Michael,

I did enjoy your observation: "The USN made more appearance changes to their ships during their refits than any other WWII navy." I have often thought of that and while at times my comment will seem counter-intuitive I firmly believe it is the best explanation. I believe that even when we were experiencing the horrific losses and we were throwing anything we could find on ship decks and dealing with shortages (40mm & 20mm come instantly to mind) it also displayed the simple fact that we were working from a naval largesse. Even as we were wondering where we could find any ships to send into the Slot, Second Naval Battle of Guadalc4nal where they sent two battleships, Washington and South Dakota, into tight waters because there was not a cruiser to be had and only four destroyers from four different squadrons with sufficient fuel to even make the attempt we were looking at the sheer numbers on shakedown, near to commissioning or on the ways that we could look to the day when maybe yard periods for upgrades were not to be made without some thought but certainly we could see a time when they could be done without hamstringing the effort. I doubt that even the Royal Navy ever got to that point. They always seemed ever on the edge to me. Though I have not read about the Royal Navy quite as much.

*****Yes, I know. Too many run-on sentences. I am obviously not an English teacher.*****
"It is a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step into the road and, if you do not keep your feet, there is no telling where you might be swept off to."

Bilbo Baggins to Frodo Baggins.

michaelw43
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:53 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Consolidated Micronaut Wish List

Post by michaelw43 »

@ww2navyguy

An4lyzing the Omaha class is a lot different than the New Orleans class. There are more ships, and since none were sunk all of them were reconstructed, but not all in exactly the same way. The result is many variations on a theme, but I believe I have flushed out the theme. I will post shortly.

Michael D. Waters

michaelw43
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:53 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Consolidated Micronaut Wish List

Post by michaelw43 »

@ww2navyguy
@Brigade Commander

Thanks both for your confidence. It is indeed an honor to be likened to Donald M. Scheef!

Michael

michaelw43
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:53 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Consolidated Micronaut Wish List

Post by michaelw43 »

@Brigade Commander

That's an interesting take on the US ship remodeling program. I never thought of it that way before, but I'm sure the top Navy brass knew what was coming in our war emergency construction program, so that means the US could afford the time to adapt American warships to then current needs. And of course with a huge industrial expansion in shipyards we could more than make up for our ship losses as well. Good thought!

Another thought I had is that the US couldn't afford fleet modernization prewar because that was the time of the great depression and funds were scarce, but once we were at war money for defense was readily available. I find it interesting that the enormous spending required for the war is what got the US out of the depression.

For the British, the war exhausted them financially and every other way, probably because they lost their empire in the process and that cost them dearly. Bless them all!

Also you nailed the fact that the whole Guadalc4nal operation was based on improvisation. Everything happened at the last minute because there was no time for advance planning, provisioning and deployment. We had to react now or the initiative would have been lost. Of course there were a lot of SNAFUs, but we pulled through it all.

Michael D. Waters

Post Reply